Capitol Briefs: The legislative thrill ride

They’re in, they’re out – ballot measures come and go: Thursday was the deadline to place or pull ballot measures from the November ballot and by the end of the day at least five initiatives were officially out.

One of those removed was a labor-backed proposal that would have limited compensation for health care executives, managers, and administrators, while another was a competing measure to restrict political spending by health care unions.

The third initiative to come off the ballot was the Local Taxpayer Protection Act, the Howard Jarvis Tax Foundation measure to amend the California Constitution to require a two-thirds vote by residents to approve all local special tax increases rather than the current simple majority vote allowed for citizen initiatives.

Two more competing measures also got pulled: one that would have limited how much auto accident could receive for medical care and restrict the percentage their attorneys could take from any settlements from those accidents, and another that would have expanded liability on rideshare companies regarding sexual misconduct committed by their drivers.

One initiative that will not be coming off the ballot is the proposed 5 percent one-time tax on billionaires who were California residents as of Jan. 1 2026. Proponents – specifically SEIU United Healthcare West – say the measure will produce $100 billion to help offset massive federal health care spending cuts due to hit California in January 2027. Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and a collection of other powerful labor unions, say if voters approve the measure it will lead to many high-income residents to leave the state, threatening the state’s long-term financial stability.

Two other counter measures have also qualified for the November ballot, one to bar new state taxes on personal property and another to bar new taxes from skirting current state spending requirements.

The initiatives moving forward sets up what is likely to be one of the most expensive ballot fights in recent memory.

Bill to cap ticket resale prices moves forward: AB 1720, the California Fans First Act, by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) passed through the committee on Privacy,  Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection this week, exiting Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development on a 6-2 vote with three abstentions.

The bill seeks to cap the resale price of live entertainment tickets at 10% above their face value to eliminate price gouging on the resale market.

Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, has supported the proposal from the moment it was introduced in early February. With its stranglehold on the live-ticketing business, any Ticketmaster support is looked at with suspicion by consumer advocates who say the monolith is a threat to fair prices.

Haney’s bill and another supported by Live Nation, AB 1349 by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights) to ban resellers from listing tickets they don’t actually have, a practice known as speculative ticketing, are both working their way through the Legislature. Bryan’s bill also passed out of Senate B&P this week.

“We’ve seen time and again how efforts to restrict resale backfire,” said Geoff Vetter, spokesperson for the Coalition for Ticket Fairness, which calls the bills misguided. “They push transactions into darker corners of the internet, make it harder for independent businesses to compete and leave fans with fewer safe, transparent options. These bills would strengthen Ticketmaster’s monopoly and reduce consumer choice at a time when Americans are calling for the opposite.

“California lawmakers should focus on what’s driving high prices in the first place: a consolidated marketplace with too little competition and too little transparency. That’s the problem we need to focus on.”

Both bills are now headed to the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection, which meets again on Monday.

Girl Scouts first report spotlights challenges facing California girls: On Tuesday, the California Girl Scouts Council released its first-ever statewide report on the urgent, and often overlooked challenges confronting young girls today. The report makes the case for greater state investment toward empowering California’s next generation of female leaders.

Commissioned by eight Girl Scout councils representing 125,000 girl scouts statewide, the report draws on extensive research conducted by the Center for the Advancement of Women at Mount Saint Mary’s University. The report analyzed a broad range of public surveys to capture the voices of diverse demographics and socioeconomic backgrounds of California’s more than three million girls.

The report found nearly four in 10 California girls show signs of serious psychological distress, about double the rate among boys. Framed around the question “Are California Girls Okay?”, the report urges officials to confront disparities and barriers to opportunity across racial, economic, and language groups.

The Girl Scouts Council is advising policymakers and community leaders to increase investment in programs that address risk factors for young girls. “Experience tells us the challenges girls are facing are solvable, but it will take all of us – families, schools, youth organizations, policymakers and philanthropic partners – working together to ensure every girl in California has the opportunity to succeed,” said Theresa Edy Kiene, Chief Executive Officer of Girl Scouts of Greater Los Angeles.

In the weeds…legislatively speaking: A trio of cannabis bills advanced this week in the Legislature.

AB 1826, authored by Assemblymember Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), aims to revise the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) recall and embargo procedures by requiring the department to provide supporting documentation to licensees, offer an opportunity to meet and confer before certain recalls or destruction orders, and strengthen due process protections during enforcement actions. The Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee approved the bill as amended, on a 10-0 vote, sending it to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2250, authored by Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry (D-Winters), would make several technical and policy changes to California cannabis law, including revisiting the definitions and enforcement provisions related to cannabinoids and unlicensed cannabis activity. The Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee approved the measure on a 4-0 vote on Wednesday, sending it to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2537, authored by Assemblymember Phillip Chen (R-Yorba Linda), requires the DCC to adopt a risk-based enforcement policy that prioritizes violations posing the greatest risk to public health and safety while limiting severe penalties for minor technical or administrative violations. Along with AB 1826 and 2250, this bill heads to the Senate Appropriations Committee on a 10-0 vote by the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee.

Surveillance pricing bill moves forward: A bill that would ban companies from using algorithms based on a consumer’s personally identifiable information to set individual prices for goods and services cleared its latest legislative challenge. AB 2564, authored by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), was approved on a 5-2 vote this week in the Senate Privacy, Digital Technologies, and Consumer Protection Committee. The measure would ban the use of so-called surveillance pricing, which consumer advocates say allows businesses to charge different prices for the same products or services based on data they have collected on their potential customers. The bill is supported by a long list of consumer groups, labor unions and data privacy advocates. It is opposed by a wide range of business advocacy organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce.

The bill will be heard next in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Limiting roosters: The Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed AB 928 or the Cockfighting Cruelty Act, which would prohibit the ownership of more than three movement-constrained roosters per acre or 25 total roosters on a single property. It was introduced by Assemblymember Chris Rogers (D-Santa Rosa) in early 2025 in partnership with the Humane World for Animals.

Violators would be liable to a civil penalty of up to $2,500 for each offense after a minimum 14-day period to correct the violation. Several groups are exempt, including commercial poultry producers, certain schools and nonprofit animal welfare organizations.

The bill primarily aims to address gamefowl yards, which lawmakers note to be a particularly rampant issue within California. Despite cockfighting being outlawed nationwide, the USDA has estimated it to be a multimillion dollar industry affecting over three million birds in California alone. AB 928 also coincides with recent national concern over bird flu, which has killed over 23 million commercial and backyard poultry in the state since an outbreak in 2022. The bill states that gamefowl yards pose a significant risk for the spread of avian diseases, often due to birds being transported nationally and internationally and being unprotected from wild birds.

Supporters include the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the San Diego Humane Society and other animal welfare organizations who cite the bill as curbing animal cruelty, criminal activity and public health risks. However, a variety of groups remain in opposition, including the Pacific Poultry Breeders Association, the Southern California Poultry Club and organizations representing farmworkers, immigrants and low-income communities. These groups have raised several concerns surrounding the bill, including its potential to stifle cultural practices, penalize poultry hobbyists or unintentionally increase judicial contact for immigrant communities.

The bill moves now to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

This story was compiled by staff reporters Brian Joseph and Leah O’Tarrow, Capitol Weekly editor Rich Ehisen and interns Sydney Laird and Olivia Bye.